|
Size: 1507
Comment:
|
Size: 7591
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| == Staatsburg, 5 juli 2005, plenaire vergadering Europees Parlement over softwarepatenten == == Manders == procederen tegen patent-inbreuk kost miljoenen, dus niet te doen voor MKB, verwerpen richtlijn nodig, gemeenschapsoctrooi nodig, EOB moet onder democratische Europees controle komen == Blokland == Het gemeenschappelijk standpunt van de Raad van Ministers biedt geen oplossing voor de toegankelijkheid van octrooien voor het MKB, de bescherming van een eigen octrooi door het MKB, beschermen tegen beschuldiging schending van een octrooi door het MKB. Het is allemaal te duur. Het geeft juridisering. De gevolgen voor licentiekosten en open standaarden zijn onduidelijk. Gemeenschappelijk standpunt van de Raad van Ministers heeft onvoldoende overtuigingskracht, verwerpen. == Paul van Buitenen == De manier waarop het voorstel voor softwarepatenten tot stand komt is een grof schandaal. Grote bedrijven zoals Microsoft zien geld in softwarepatenten en zij hebben via de Business Software Alliance het voorstel van de Europese Commissie meegeschreven. Dit werd ontdekt doordat men vergeten was de naam van de auteur te verwijderen uit het document. Ik vraag voor het amendement van afwijzing te stemmen. Het Europees Parlement maakt zich belachelijk wanneer zij deze manier van totstandkoming van dit wetsvoorstel tolereert. == Meyer == In 1991 was Bill Gates nog tegen patenten, omdat met patenten de reuzen de kleintjes kunnen laten betalen wat ze willen. Nu is zijn bedrijf zelf een reus geworden, en is hij voor... == Het belang van stemmen == |
|
| Line 13: | Line 52: |
| == * The current party lines of EPP & ALDE[2], contain, roughly speaking, about 10 provisions that mandate pure software patents, and 5 others that prevent pure software patents. That might be the only way to compromise within a party group, but it's not a good basis for continuing the procedure in the EU. In October 2003 the Parliament's proposals were brushed aside by the Commission and the Council with the hint that they were found to be incoherent. In fact they were not all that incoherent, but even without incoherence, dialog with the Council is difficult enough. * Only the 21 cross-party amendments give the Parliament an non-contradictory basis for dialog with the Council. * These 21 cross-party amendments are very close to what Ms Kauppi fought for in JURI. * It should be clear to us that the "Common Position" does not only open loopholes for software patents but in fact imposes software patents on the European Union for years to come. If we let the "Common Position" pass without serious amendments today, we will no longer have any possibility of repairing the damage very soon. On the other hand, the 21 amendments are only the basis for another round of negotiations. A vote for the 21 amendments is a vote for a consistent counter-position in a dialog in which all doors remain open. * The 21 cross-party amendments leave no doubt about the patentability of MRI scanning solutions, computer-controlled machine tools and other achievements in applied natural science, about which companies like Siemens and Philips have been expressing concern. Some of these changes, such as the proposed narrow definitions of "data processing" and "computer program", make this very clear. It is difficult to understand why those who have expressed concern about too sweeping exclusions from patentability are not now supporting the 21 compromise amendments. * Don't forget that any absence or abstention will be counted as a vote in favor of the Council. This is one of the rules of the current legislative procedure of the EU that needs to be changed, and it is perhaps one of the reasons why the Council chose to ignore the Parliament's 1st reading. But we can't do anything about it now, all we can do is show up and vote. * This directive has brought European politics as close to citizens as hardly any directive before. While the EU has suffered a setback on the constitution referenda, we see here in this case how a new generation of citizens and SMEs has quickly familiarised itself with the most arcane areas of European politics and lively participated in our debates. As a Parliament we today send a signal to these SMEs and to this generation. We should be aware of the fact that we are deciding today about more than just the patenting of software. Software is decisive for access to the information society. We are deciding about some of the face of the information society, as it will present itself for years, maybe decades to come. We are talking about how we should stimulate information society. Most of the citizens who have actively taken part in this dossier already live in information society. Their enterprises are small, flexible and innovative. They do not want patents, because they want to win competition at the customer's place, not in the lawcourt, and because they are already doing that every day. It was impressive to see how quickly programmers learn the intricacies of patent law, thereby often surpassing many lawyers. The question whether those big, immobilised IT companies, most of whom are at the moment busy shrinking their operations in Europe and rebuilding them in India and China, are recommending software patents mainly because that protects them from these small players, is more than justified. Microsoft also once started as a garage company. Bill Gates hasn't forgotten that, nor should we. [1] German parties call on MEPs http://wiki.ffii.org/MdbAnMdep050701En Unternehmerinitiative: Union soll endlich Farbe bekennen bei Softwarepatenten http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/61161 [2] LYMEC calls on ALDE to support the 21 cross-partisan amendments http://www.lymec.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=346&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 |
Staatsburg, 5 juli 2005, plenaire vergadering Europees Parlement over softwarepatenten
Manders
procederen tegen patent-inbreuk kost miljoenen, dus niet te doen voor MKB,
verwerpen richtlijn nodig,
gemeenschapsoctrooi nodig, EOB moet onder democratische Europees controle komen
Blokland
Het gemeenschappelijk standpunt van de Raad van Ministers biedt geen oplossing voor de toegankelijkheid van octrooien voor het MKB, de bescherming van een eigen octrooi door het MKB, beschermen tegen beschuldiging schending van een octrooi door het MKB. Het is allemaal te duur.
Het geeft juridisering. De gevolgen voor licentiekosten en open standaarden zijn onduidelijk.
Gemeenschappelijk standpunt van de Raad van Ministers heeft onvoldoende overtuigingskracht, verwerpen.
Paul van Buitenen
De manier waarop het voorstel voor softwarepatenten tot stand komt is een grof schandaal. Grote bedrijven zoals Microsoft zien geld in softwarepatenten en zij hebben via de Business Software Alliance het voorstel van de Europese Commissie meegeschreven. Dit werd ontdekt doordat men vergeten was de naam van de auteur te verwijderen uit het document.
Ik vraag voor het amendement van afwijzing te stemmen. Het Europees Parlement maakt zich belachelijk wanneer zij deze manier van totstandkoming van dit wetsvoorstel tolereert.
Meyer
In 1991 was Bill Gates nog tegen patenten, omdat met patenten de reuzen de kleintjes kunnen laten betalen wat ze willen. Nu is zijn bedrijf zelf een reus geworden, en is hij voor...
Het belang van stemmen
De compromis amendmenten van Buzek, Duff en Rocard zijn de beste oplossing voor zowel de Europese maakindustrie als voor ICT-bedrijven. Door technologie te definieren als “toegepaste natuurwetenschap” blijven antiblokkeringsremsystemen en medische scanners, etc, patenteerbaar.
Onthouden van stemmen zou steun betekenen voor de door de Nederlandse Adviescommissie Software Octrooien gewraakte huidige praktijk, die door deze tekst wettelijk wordt vastgelegd. Zoals bekend hebben de Business Software Alliance (Microsoft) and SAP zeer stevig voor deze Raadsversie gelobbiet, omdat hij patenteerbaarheid van pure software en methoden van zakendoen garandeert. Voor het MKB zal de Raadsversie een lastenverzwaring en een hoogst onzekere juridische situatie betekenen.
Onthouden van stemmen is het slechtste dat het EP kan doen woensdag.
De amendementen van Lehne-Kauppi bieden het MKB onvoldoende garanties, maar zijn beter dan onthouden.
Slechts volle steun voor de 21 compromis amendementen zal het Europees Parlement een sterke positie geven tijdens de Conciliatie met de Raad van Ministers. Indien deze 21 compromis amendementen geen 367 stemmen halen dient de richtlijn te worden verworpen.
Zorgvuldige bestudering van de 21 compromis amendementen en de toelichting maakt duidelijk dat de Raadsversie niet waarmaakt wat zij na zegt te steven.
==
* The current party lines of EPP & ALDE[2], contain, roughly speaking,
- about 10 provisions that mandate pure software patents, and 5 others that prevent pure software patents. That might be the only way to compromise within a party group, but it's not a good basis for continuing the procedure in the EU. In October 2003 the Parliament's proposals were brushed aside by the Commission and the Council with the hint that they were found to be incoherent. In fact they were not all that incoherent, but even without incoherence, dialog with the Council is difficult enough.
* Only the 21 cross-party amendments give the Parliament an
- non-contradictory basis for dialog with the Council.
* These 21 cross-party amendments are very close to what Ms Kauppi
- fought for in JURI.
* It should be clear to us that the "Common Position" does not only
- open loopholes for software patents but in fact imposes software patents on the European Union for years to come. If we let the "Common Position" pass without serious amendments today, we will no longer have any possibility of repairing the damage very soon. On the other hand, the 21 amendments are only the basis for another round of negotiations. A vote for the 21 amendments is a vote for a consistent counter-position in a dialog in which all doors remain open.
* The 21 cross-party amendments leave no doubt about the
- patentability of MRI scanning solutions, computer-controlled machine tools and other achievements in applied natural science, about which companies like Siemens and Philips have been expressing concern. Some of these changes, such as the proposed narrow definitions of "data processing" and "computer program", make this very clear. It is difficult to understand why those who have expressed concern about too sweeping exclusions from patentability are not now supporting the 21 compromise amendments.
* Don't forget that any absence or abstention will be counted as a
- vote in favor of the Council. This is one of the rules of the current legislative procedure of the EU that needs to be changed, and it is perhaps one of the reasons why the Council chose to ignore the Parliament's 1st reading. But we can't do anything about it now, all we can do is show up and vote.
* This directive has brought European politics as close to citizens as
- hardly any directive before. While the EU has suffered a setback on the constitution referenda, we see here in this case how a new generation of citizens and SMEs has quickly familiarised itself with the most arcane areas of European politics and lively participated in our debates. As a Parliament we today send a signal to these SMEs and to this generation. We should be aware of the fact that we are deciding today about more than just the patenting of software. Software is decisive for access to the information society. We are deciding about some of the face of the information society, as it will present itself for years, maybe decades to come. We are talking about how we should stimulate information society. Most of the citizens who have actively taken part in this dossier already live in information society. Their enterprises are small, flexible and innovative. They do not want patents, because they want to win competition at the customer's place, not in the lawcourt, and because they are already doing that every day. It was impressive to see how quickly programmers learn the intricacies of patent law, thereby often surpassing many lawyers. The question whether those big, immobilised IT companies, most of whom are at the moment busy shrinking their operations in Europe and rebuilding them in India and China, are recommending software patents mainly because that protects them from these small players, is more than justified. Microsoft also once started as a garage company. Bill Gates hasn't forgotten that, nor should we.
[1] German parties call on MEPs
http://wiki.ffii.org/MdbAnMdep050701En Unternehmerinitiative: Union soll endlich Farbe bekennen bei Softwarepatenten
[2] LYMEC calls on ALDE to support the 21 cross-partisan amendments http://www.lymec.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=346&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
==
De amendementen: http://wiki.ffii.org/Plen05En
Microsoft achter "MKB" advertentie: http://wiki.vrijschrift.org/ACT050901